« Patents.com Sold! | Main | Tilting at Windmills »

May 11, 2007

Comments

Mathias Baumgartner

imho .web would have a hard time to rival .net. It might surpass .biz - but a beach head to eventually rival .com? I don't see that within a foreseeable future, unless technology, the nature of traffic, or public perceptions will change dramatically. That being said, I fully agree with your point: .web could potentially create a lot more value than .this .that or .niche

***FS*** Thanks Mathias.. that's exactly my point.

Kevin Ohashi

http://utah.travel/

At least one state bought into the .travel, saw it advertised on TV, though it probably confused a lot of people as im sure nobody knows that .travel is even a valid thing to type in after the 'dot.'

***FS*** ..and the winner is travel.com .. Not trying to be unfairly hard on these new spaces.. but this is such a limited name space.. what good is adding it if only a few thousand will ever use them? If we had some viable namespaces as well, I wouldn't care so much about whether .travel and other sponsored tlds came to pass

Christopher Ambler

Thank you, I believe I agree :-)

David Wrixon (aka Rubber Duck)

ICANN recognise, that it is going to be necessary to grow the domain space a great deal in order to satisfy World demand going forward. They have also recognised they need to strategy for filling out the domain space. There objective is provide useful names to all that need them, but their goal is not to maximise the profits of speculators, and they have no desire to create new vehicles simply for the purposes of speculation.

The existing round of new TLDs was effectively started five years ago and is now reaching its conclusion. ICANN froze the whole damned thing sometime back because they themselves were unsatisfied with the outcomes, and they appreciated that there was a growing mountain of policy issues to address.

No new TLDs will be issued until the formulation of new TLD policy is complete. This is gaining momentum and will be pretty much all encompassing. It is address a wide variety of issues from a wide variety of perspectives. OK, you are never going to please everyone, but ICANN is actually formed of a number of constituent bodies that all have an input on policy. Effectively they reach out to various stakeholder bodies and try to get representive input from them. The include Governments, Business, Cultural and Lingusitic communities. The are trying to address a diverse range of issues from implementation of single character domains to IDN and the associated Intellectual Property considerations.

Ok, they are never going to please everyone and they probably won't get it alright. My biggest critisism is how long it is all taking, but the deeper you look the more you realise why it is not a simple as it all looks.

One thing is certain, that complaining about the outcomes on bloggs will not change anything. If you are going to change things, you need to find a way of joining the ICANN process through one of the constituency organisations. Frankly, I wouldn't even dream of going there because it is going to be very difficult to exert much influence in an organisation that is rapidly becoming as complexed as the United Nations. What all serious domainers should be doing, however, is keeping a firm eye on the process and trying to determine how and when that will create speculation opportunities.

***FS*** That last sentence is a pretty good piece of advice.

Jlw

Frank - While I agree .web could be an excellent rival extension to .com, what good will it be if the same allocation as .eu occurs?

We as speculators could drive down the accessibility, and increase the amount of parked pages across the tld space, and thereby actually decrease the value of the extension in the minds of consumers.

***FS*** Well said John.. I think speculators would initially take the creamiest of the cream but there would still be plenty of logical terms left for the everyman. A lot of speculators wouldn't be able to pay renewals on the longtail search-term names taken during a landrush.. Not saying its without problems but all-in-all it would be better that adding the current spate of limited and largely useless extensions.

DeeferDog

It appears that many readers of this blog have strong and well thought out views about ICANN and what they should (or should not) do.

Today ICANN put out an announcement asking for people to express their views http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may07.htm


It will be interesting to see how many people in this community respond to the invitation and speak directly with ICANN.

Maybe you could run a thread that allows your readers to let us know what issues they have raised with ICANN. After all the future of the internet is in the safe hands of Web2.0 and that's all about transparent communities sharing information, yes? ;-}

***FS*** Many who readthis forum have tried.. and will try again.. At the risk of sounding defeatist, ICANN is famous for not listening to those who comment on its forums.. still nothing begets nothing.. so comment if you have something to say.

Kieren McCarthy

ICANN is serious about getting more TLDs in in this round.

The problem - as your post inadvertently makes clear - is that people haven't really got their head around what new gTLDs they want and why.

You give a single example - .web. I think .web would end up being a complete waste of time. Why would anyone buy a .web address? Isn't it just stuck in the same mindset of the .com model? Wouldn't it be just another lesser cousin of .com?

I think we need to be a little more creative here. And we need to recognise the lesson of the other gTLDs - you cannot just expect people to buy these domains - you have to offer something unique and you have to market it.

I also think there is coming a "tipping point" with domains. At the moment, I bet less than one percent of Net users are even aware that other TLDs outside .com and their country code even exist.

But when more start coming out and sticking in people's minds - and most importantly when it becomes clear to people why they may want to buy a domain under a new gTLD, well, then we'll see something really interesting.

But it's going to take imagination and passion to get there.

My thoughts: .blog; .bank; .stamps; .coffee; .photo; .dvd; .film; .book; .google; .u2.

I am ICANN's general manager of public participation and I want to push great ideas for the Net of the future. If you have any - please email me - kieren [dot] mccarthy @ icann [dotorg]

Kieren

***FS*** Thanks Kieren.. I do not have an interest in .web aside from the fact that it is at immediately meaningful and reasonant to millions of people around the globe. As an open GTLD with low $4 renewals it could seriously challenge the foundation of .com. The list of TLDs you mention with the exception of perhaps .blog are too insular to gain traction and provide reach. People won't experiment typing them in because they would not be registered in large enough quantities to build a base. I think they'd be relegated to the novety bin. People want to go to where other people are. Great TLDs are like great city states in that regard. These are my opinions of course. And .Google is too long to type as an extension.. perhaps .goog or .g though.

Ultimately I think all of these extensions (if universally approved) would only serve to steal registrations from weaker previous tld's such as .mobi, .cc, .tv, .aero, .pro etc etc. My daughter just said .com for the first time .. she's 3years old. It's hard to turn that thought ship around.

nate

When I read this post in my RSS feed, I thought to myself "What?". How is .web any different from any of the others? It IS all about mindshare and habit, not about the letters. I see what you're saying, and the agreement of others here, but please don't lose the real point, which has nothing to do with whether it's .web, .biz, .coffee, .whatever. None of that matters when it comes to being a rival. The more tlds that come out, the more difficult it will become to try to rival .com because there will be too many options. Instead of trying to figure out what new tld to roll out, the ones that already exist need more prominence and scarcity. Current tlds don't need more competition. That will just solidify the .com even more than it already is in people's brains.

**FS** Well said Nate! .. I think I'm too close to this sometimes.. I just looked at web as best of bunch.

Christopher Ambler

Kieren makes a good point that TLDs for specific purposes might have some utility. As such, I would love to see a company that feels they could make a business around one of them apply to ICANN and give it a go.

But that's the point, and that's why I bristle somewhat when people say that a particular TLD is "no good." Who is to tell a business that they can't compete?

I don't particularly like roast beef sandwiches, but I'd never advocate that Arby's shouldn't exist simply because I prefer Taco Bell. Who am I to say that one business model would be a waste of time, especially considering that every time I drive by Arby's, they seem to be doing a brisk business. There's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

To hear this "waste of time" statement from someone who regularly speaks for ICANN gives me chills.

Snoopy

I agree with some of the sentiment towards .web. It sounds like a cheap version of an already cheap extension .net. I can imagine widescale confusion also, the two terms are far too similar.

***FS*** 888 vs 800 tollfree have similar dynamic... if the intention is to add more viable extensions so users have a real choice.. web is a good one because it has a similar art and feel without .net's historical networking stigma

The comments to this entry are closed.